Thread: Progress in Iraq - Oh no!

well, i think we shouldn't project the western mentality on the guys from the middle east. iraq is one of the most secular and most developed countries in the region (and so is Iran in terms of their population, despite the governing regime). nevertheless as JohnP said, just as there is a bad side of LA there are many facets of the iraqi society.
when i hear talk about people deserving freedom it usually makes me cringe. the last thing that goes into political decisions is what people want or deserve. that may sound cynical, but i don't think it's too far from the truth - singling out the iraqi's as deserving freedom implies that say the saudis are not as deserving.
i have many friends from the middle east - some religious some not and as always things are not black and white.
if american politicians are actually interested in the good of the iraqi people they will find a way to transfer the power to them. from what i've seen so far, their interest is something else - 'winning the war', 'liberating the iraqis', 'defeating the enemy', or whatever else it always revolves around US, not Iraq. yes many perhaps most Iraqi's like US, but as the polls show they want to have back their country which they govern by themselves. i think the self-centered us policies in iraq have been detrimental to the progress, but that's just what it is. if course the internal fights for power among various iraqi factions are equally destabilizing, not to speak about the policies of the iraqi's neighbors, iran included.
so all this is to say that none of us has much idea of what is really going on, but long-term occupation in the model of the post ww2 ones doesn't look like a viable solution.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I can't speak for everyone, but I think it's ridiculous that credit is being given to a nation which still shoots (or stones to death) its women for "transgressions" which wouldn't warrant a nod in the rest of the world-for causing "peace".
S

You have to love a state religion.

Originally Posted by sicboater

You have to love a state religion.

Iraq was under Saddam and still is secular

Originally Posted by peas_and_corn

Iraq was under Saddam and still is secular

sicboater was referring to Iran

Originally Posted by gugi

well, i think we shouldn't project the western mentality on the guys from the middle east. iraq is one of the most secular and most developed countries in the region (and so is Iran in terms of their population, despite the governing regime). nevertheless as JohnP said, just as there is a bad side of LA there are many facets of the iraqi society.
when i hear talk about people deserving freedom it usually makes me cringe. the last thing that goes into political decisions is what people want or deserve. that may sound cynical, but i don't think it's too far from the truth - singling out the iraqi's as deserving freedom implies that say the saudis are not as deserving.
i have many friends from the middle east - some religious some not and as always things are not black and white.
if american politicians are actually interested in the good of the iraqi people they will find a way to transfer the power to them. from what i've seen so far, their interest is something else - 'winning the war', 'liberating the iraqis', 'defeating the enemy', or whatever else it always revolves around US, not Iraq. yes many perhaps most Iraqi's like US, but as the polls show they want to have back their country which they govern by themselves. i think the self-centered us policies in iraq have been detrimental to the progress, but that's just what it is. if course the internal fights for power among various iraqi factions are equally destabilizing, not to speak about the policies of the iraqi's neighbors, iran included.
so all this is to say that none of us has much idea of what is really going on, but long-term occupation in the model of the post ww2 ones doesn't look like a viable solution.

I basically agree with you, I just happen to be a bit more optimistic about the subject than some. There is a huge amount of success that is not being acknowledged very publicly. I think this is tragic because I also believe it is often this way for political reasons, e.g. the U.S. Media complex so hates the current President and to a lesser extent the Republican party, or even the armed forces in general, that they are loathe to report good news resulting from the actions of the former. Giving the Iraqis credit for the progress they have already made would also not fall in line with this prevailing mindset.

My POV on the subject is that Iraq is almost ready to stand on its own, and the sooner we finish our work there successfully and hand them back a country that isn't in pieces, the better.
The Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, and no, the majority of them are not bomb-wearing zealots out to kill Americans. They are in many cases fighting alongside Americans for a common goal. This is good. As Iraqi Army, Police, and various Iraqi SF and CounterTerror units are stepping in more and more, we (Americans and other Coalition troops) have less and less to do. Good news doesn't sell, so the cameras go only to the bad news (IED's etc) and dwell on them for years-
Were I a gambling man, considering the media love here for certain political candidates, the news will remain bad from Iraq until the new President takes over, then the "news" will suddenly report all the good that has, in fact, been occurring all along.
I also think Gen. Petraeus is a genius. Unfortunately men like him and other true leaders seldom lean to politics, so we get the crop we've seen for the past few elections. Hard to believe they are the best the nation has to offer, but perhaps the way things are currently set up (only multimillionaires who look good on TV with perfect smiles and Patrician pedigrees need apply...Andrew Jackson wouldn't have a chance these days...) it is a curse we are unfortunately going to have to live under.
Regardless, Iraq is doing much better, I think, than many people seem to realize, and I suspect the good news will be held back and then proclaimed under the next President, at least if the one the Media likes most makes it.
If the Soviet Union was run by the Communist Party, the U.S. is run by the Media complex and what it says people should believe.
It is no different wrt Iraq. The Iraqis are not savages, and are doing quite well at their progress IMHO. The extra muscle from the "surge" just helps send the message to the rabble-rousers, murderers, and thugs, that the best route for them is to play nice.
Hopefully they will, soon enough, and Iraq will be a place people WANT to visit, for the first time in decades.


Again, apologies for rambling on.

John P.

Thing is right now so much of what we're doing is keeping peace between the shiites ant the sunni, a large pert of the patreaus plan is to seal off a neighborhood once it's been decided to be one sect. We may be able to achieve stability while we're there, but once we leave... On top of that a long term presence in a muslim country as opposed to korea or germany would undercut the true spirit of the people and what they stand for. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

There are many problems with the current peace, and they will boil over sometime soon. One way the United States has achieved stability was essentially by arming Sunni militia, and letting them patrol the streets. This is a sound idea only in the short term, but not in any long term way. Baghdad has had a large drop is violence, but one key factos ir the de-facto genocide that has and is creating ethnic cantons, rather than the diverse and blended Baghdad that it was not many years ago. Majority Shiite and Sunni towns are peaceful for very much the same reason.

One aspect of interest to me is the current discussions between the United States and the Iraqi government over the terms of the continuing presence in Iraq. The United States government wants to maintain the immunity the troops have to prosecution for committing a crime. Much has been written comparing the British mandate to the US presence, and this is certainly a very good comparison, as the terms that the American troops (both military and private contractors) serve under are incredibly similar to those that the British troops did.

The United States essentially needs to give some sort of comprimise in these negotiations. There needs to be some sign that Iraq is, in some sense of the word, 'sovereign'. One of the conditions of sovereignty is 'the monopoly on the legitimate use of force'- a quite crutial one, quite frankly. If the United States defines what makes violence legitimate, if the United States takes part in anti-terrorist operations without the involvement of the Iraqi government, then Iraq is not a sovereign state. For Iraq to not be sovereign after 5 years, then the idea of progress, even on a political front, sounds pretty hollow.

Yes, the goal is almost complete. We have killed off many of the resistors and have poisoned the others with depleted uranium. Pretty soon we will be able to rightfully steal the resources from the people in the name of freedom.

Originally Posted by DSailing

Yes, the goal is almost complete. We have killed off many of the resistors and have poisoned the others with depleted uranium. Pretty soon we will be able to rightfully steal the resources from the people in the name of freedom.

It makes you wonder why any Iraqi's at all are fighting and dying next to US soldiers in defense of their own nation against those resistors

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Thing is right now so much of what we're doing is keeping peace between the shiites ant the sunni, a large pert of the patreaus plan is to seal off a neighborhood once it's been decided to be one sect. We may be able to achieve stability while we're there, but once we leave... On top of that a long term presence in a muslim country as opposed to korea or germany would undercut the true spirit of the people and what they stand for. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Agreed on this. It reminds me of so much of what happened in eastern Europe after WWII. In Yugoslavia, for example, Tito basically laid a heavy hand on a whole bunch of sectarian strife and kept a lid on it for 50 years. Exit Tito, and sooner or later, what happens? Same in the various SSRs, like in Chechnya; same all over.

So what happens when the US leaves? Can you say Kosovo?

How (and why) did we ever get into this?

j